It is fair to say that challenger Ned Lamont’s dramatic victory yesterday over incumbent Senator Joe Lieberman in the Connecticut Democratic primary pivoted almost entirely on the war in Iraq — an issue that has dogged Washington Sen. Maria Cantwell throughout her reelection campaign. But it may come as a surprise to anti-war Democrats — and perhaps to Sen. Cantwell herself — to learn that she and Lamont essentially share almost identical positions on the war.
Lamont supported the Reed/Levin Amendment which called for the administration to start redeploying troops out of Iraq starting in 2006. Sen. Cantwell voted for it.
In speaking about Iraq, Lamont has firmly argued that “America should make clear that we have no designs upon their oil and no plans for permanent bases.” Sen. Cantwell co-sponsored an amendment on this exact issue, helping to push passage through the U.S. Senate.
Lamont believes that “Our best chance of success requires that the Iraqis take control of their own destiny.” In supporting the Levin-Reed Amendment Sen. Cantwell stated that it would “encourage the Iraqis to take complete control of their own future.”
And throughout his campaign Lamont has argued that it is time for us to “change course” and bring the troops home. In a letter to President Bush sent on August 4, Sen. Cantwell twice told the president that we must “change course” to help the Iraqis find a political solution and take over its own security.
I know many Democrats who cite Sen. Cantwell’s vote to authorize the war along with her refusal to vocally criticize the President in its aftermath, as the primary reason they can offer her only grudging support at best. And yet both she and Lamont — who earned the enthusiastic support of anti-war Democrats in yesterday’s primary — apparently share the same position on what to do about the war now.
Just thought you all might want to know.
UPDATE:
Not much of a surprise, but Sen. Cantwell has endorsed Lamont:
“I congratulate Ned Lamont on his victory last night. I respect the decision of the Connecticut Democrats in choosing their nominee and I will support him.”
Joe didn’t represent his constituency , and Lamont does . Maria does not represent her constituency who are opposed to her stand on the war . Let’s have her explain how long she thinks it will take her to meet the goals she would be satisfied to say ” mission accomplished ” in Iraq . Perhaps she could explain what ” not being in Iraq permanently ” means .
Last year at this time Murtha began to call for a pull out in Iraq , one year later , nothing has changed .
I have a prediction , those confetti cannons that Maria likes so well , she may as well have them filled with good Democrat children becuse we will still be pouring blood on the sand in Iraq in 6 more years of Maria , you can bet on it . Senator stop the war .
LoL looks like Cantwell supporters are running scared this morning as well they should be
GO HONG
Nice try, Goldy, but it sounds desperate. I don’t like that. Just be honest. Cantwell is our only choice. So, we’ll vote for her. This weak attempt to juxtapose her with Lamont doesn’t fly.
I love Hong Tran and I’m not afraid to give her notice. This fear that some of you desperate dems seem to radiate doesn’t attract me. We need to look at the long run and if things need to get worse before they get better, well maybe that’s needed to get our party back. The real party that stood for the working person. The dems as they currently stand don’t have much to offer me.
Um, as has been pointed out many times before, Maria is a Senator for Washington State not just “Senator for Seattle”. Her base is broader, and much more stable than that of “time to go Joe”.
This state elected Henry Jackson year after year with an amalgam of New Deal Democrats and centrist Republicans. One of their core values was Competence. Another core value was political clout. Maria has brought home the bacon to enough interests to be given that. There are enough of us old fossils to re-elect Cantwell.
There are many younger voters who seem to think the world started in 1959. . . .But the percentages of that crowd who actually vote are still depressingly low. Until that changes. I doubt Maria is in danger.
Well , if she is to be our Senator again , it is the strongest argument there is for term limits .
@5 How’s that vote you cast for George Nethercutt workin’ out for ya?
In 36 yrs of voting , i have only voted for 1 rep. and he lost .
Did Ned lie about the minimum wage bill too?
TFF, Eisenhower, Jackson, even Evans have no association with the republicans of today. It is a different time. Of course Maria will be reelected. Who said she wouldn’t? But, it doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t give notice to others as well. Perhaps you are old enough to sit back and observe. You enjoyed the best of times.
Your comment about “1959” is offensive to people who are having to make do in a much different time and with much less support. For many people, the world did begin in 1959.
Am hearing “The Conversation” on KUOW and several people have commented that they are going to vote for Tran simply to get Maria’s attention. Of course, these people heard Tran on Reynold’s show . . . so they know her. Too bad so many other media outlets censor fringe politicians . . . how democratic of you . . . not. That includes you Goldy.
Oh, well,Skagit, some people’s lot in life is to be offended. If your world started in the 1959, hopefully education and experience have broadened you view and opinions beyond that.
It’s a simplification to state that people voted for Lamont because he was the “Anti-War” candidate.
Mr. Lamont’s supporters were also concerned with:
1. the outsourcing of American jobs
2. Medicare D
3. Social Security privatization
4. Prescription prices
5. the end of the Alioto filibuster
6. Mr. Lieberman’s promise in his first campaign that he would only run for 3 terms, already proved false by his primary run.
7. Mr. Lieberman refusing to give up his Senate seat in order to run for VP, thereby possibly giving his seat to the Republicans if he was elected.
8. Mr. Leiberman getting a kiss from President Bush after the State of the Union address
There were many other reasons but those were the ones most discussed.
Liebermann is about to pull a “Ross Perot” on the Democrats.
Ah, you ass-u-me TFF. A better reading and response could have been attempted and would have been more interesting. You don’t usually respond with a broad-brush which must prove my point.
1. the outsourcing of American jobs
Does Ned support Nafta like Maria?
3. Social Security privatization
I have yet to see any politican deal with SS reform effectively
7. Mr. Lieberman refusing to give up his Senate seat in order to run for VP, thereby possibly giving his seat to the Republicans if he was elected.
Which Kerry and edwards both did too. a non issue.
8. Mr. Leiberman getting a kiss from President Bush after the State of the Union address
oh so ned is homophobic?
This last one is the stupidest issue raised yet.
Could she be a “Cynthia “BitchSlap” McKinney” Democrat?
Vurz,
Yes, all of those things played a part, but, even with all that, I suspect Lieberman would have won easily if he had done one thing: pledged to support the winner of the primary, even if it was Lamont. His determination to run as the “Connecticut for Lieberman” (Lieberman: Party of One) candidate played into Lamont’s hands so perfectly, I couldn’t believe he was dumb enough to do it. I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall at Lamont HQ when they heard the news.
If you look at the polling, Lieberman’s announcement that he was laying the groundwork to run even if he lost the primary was precisely the time when Lamont gained significantly.
If he pledges to respect the party’s voters, he wins with 60%, easy.
I would say that your Hong Tran Goggles are blinding you. We are coming on to what the old pols used to call ‘the nut-cutting time”. What happened in Connecticut was part of that process. Not supporting Cantwell is not.
To quote Ernest Hemingway: “Stick around, we’re only just starting lunch.”
Vurz @ 12: “the outsourcing of American jobs”
Did you just cut ‘n’ paste from a Dem talking points website? One of the key ways you know the Dems really know NOTHING about the issue is that they call it “outsourcing” when they really mean “offshoring.”
TJ @ 17
60% of 10% of the voting public isn’t a win in the general election.
Lieberman is going to win the general and will actually gain power because the Dems are going to have to court his vote instead of just assuming he’ll toe the line.
The activist Dems registered their protest and most, if not all, will vote for Lamont in the general. Because the (R) is a non-contender, moderate R’s and centrists will go Lieberman out of fear of Lamont. That’ll be enough to put him over the top in a close race.
The impact nationally will actually be far worse for the Dems because now every candidate will have to kiss MorOn.org’s anti-war ring. Smart R’s will move closer to center by raising concerns about how the Iraq is being handled without coming out too strong against the White House. (i.e. “We’re there and we needed to be there, but we need to rethink our overall strategy.”) The GOP PR folks will also make an issue of every Dem that suddenly starts dancing to the MorOn.org tune.
Just watch. Goldy has already started into it with his Lamont Litmus Test (aka “LLT”) — the LLT being the newest product from the joint venture of MorOn.org Labs and SorosCorp.
I don’t see Maria looking for a job early next year. She’s get re-elected. It’s impossible for a non-Deomcrat to overcome the voting bloc of the dominant Western Washington counties.
Oh, so now a person who listens to all comers and tries to keep an open mind is wearing “goggles.” Now, I understand . . . you’re just an old fart who isn’t interested in anything new. Gotcha. I’ll be sure to not encourage any further discussions.
“outsourcing” and “offshoring” roughly the same in current vernacular. Quit splitting hairs . . . who cares.
My support of Maria Cantwell pretty much solidified after she told that senile old coot Tom “Bridge to nowhere land” Coburn that Washington’s Puget Sound was not the same as Alaska’s Prince Williams Sound. In Washington we protect the environment, not exploit it:
Washington Post story: Puget Sound Bill Ignites Hill Battle
…In the state of Washington, no one has howled louder about Stevens’s bill — and has more to gain from voter awareness of the noise she is making — than Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.).
The first-term senator is up for reelection next fall, has a formidable Republican challenger and has been described by some political analysts as “beatable.” But she has won effusive praise from local editorial writers and political veterans for standing up to the powerful senior senator from Alaska.
“This is a great issue for Maria,” said Rep. Norman D. Dicks (D-Wash.), a senior member of the state’s congressional delegation. “The only thing more holy in this state than keeping Californians from taking water from the Columbia River is protecting Puget Sound.”
Libertarian @ 21
Hmmm… That Western WA voting bloc almost failed to get Gregoire elected — and you didn’t have the Dem Party pseudo-core slamming her at every turn like they do Maria.
Liberals must arm. Not tomorrow, or next week, but now“ while you can still acquire guns without the government knowing who has them.
Commentby Roger Rabbit” 8/7/06@ 11:53 pm
Roger you are stretching the truth again about the National Guard. Where is your Church Roger you know the one you boast about, the Church of Liberalism? Your friends today will end the Democrat Party and introduce the new Socialist Democrat Party after Joe Lieberman defeat tonight. Now the Republicans will only have to deal with the extremist Left and the Communist that jump party line to win. Lenin’s idiots finally got a hold in this government threw the Democrat Party. Roger did you and your friends go to Paris France with John Kerry and sell off this country in order to gain power? Roger what is your real fears today, knowing you are a traitor to this country principles, values, and traditions?
I think people overestimate the “blueness” of WA state. We’ve had our share of republicans throughout our history. I’m a bleeding heart liberal who voted for Gorton one time. Wouldn’t do it again but did it.
We are much more likely to choose issues and candidates over party, I believe.
60% of 10% of the voting public isn’t a win in the general election.
Mark,
Really? I never would have guessed. Of course, if he had won 60% yesterday, he would be facing an extremely weak GOP opponent in the general, and Ned Lamont would be campaigning for Joe. But that’s not going to happen because Holy Joe screwed the pooch.
If Lieberman had pledged to support the result of the primary, he would have severely undercut the Lamont campaign’s argument that Lieberman was a traitor to the Democrats at key points over the last 6-8 years. Instead, he reinforced it.
As for your wishful thinking regarding the general, his loss means one thing: incumbents – Republican and Democratic alike – are going to have to pay attention to their constituents, and those who neglect them will be shown the door.
Klake, quit reposting things all the time! It gets old!
Nope! Cantwell is much closer to a Lieberman Democrat. Her reliance on Pentagon intelligence that was cooked up by Feith and Rumsfeld led her to vote in favor of the resolution empowering Bush to invade Iraq and her continuing reliance on the same source pursuant to revelations that the intelligence source is faulty tend to underscore that fact. Her replies to several letters have reinforced that notion.
If you’d like to see a Lamont Democrat, try http://www.hontran.com/index.php.
skagit @ 23
We all know that “baba” likely means “bottle” to an infant, but that doesn’t make it right.
If you’re going to talk economic policy with the adults, you should use the proper terms, lest you be mistaken for a talking-points-spouting lemming.
I presume your issue is US companies sending jobs overseas because those workers actually WANT the jobs and don’t take a half-dozen sick days for a hangnail.
Show me the documentation on the hang-nail charge please and I might take you seriously.
TJ @ 28
I doubt Lamont’s conscience (aka the marionette strings of MorOn.org) would have allowed him to enthusiastically campaign on behalf of Lieberman.
“…his loss means one thing: incumbents – Republican and Democratic alike – are going to have to pay attention to their constituents, and those who neglect them will be shown the door.”
Dems are far better at eating their own than the GOP. While the GOP isn’t the last word on inclusiveness, their “big tent” is a lot bigger than the Left’s. You guys keep pushing people OUT of your party when they don’t march
gooselockstep with the Party commissars.As for “constituents,” the general election will tell. Just because you chant the loudest, doesn’t make you the majority.
skagit @ 32
I’m guessing you failed the “English” portion of your GED? “Hangnail” was something called hyperbole.
The republican tent just seems bigger because it is all about money and the more money it can hold, the bigger it gets. And boy is the republican base ever getting richer! Lots of diverse repubs but they are united around money.
Dems have no such unifying force. It’s harder.
Oh, I get it. Your arguments are all based on hyperbole. Thanks. I will try to attend to more serious posters from now on. (lol)
Libertarian, I deferred to you on the last thread . . . thought you’d wanna know.
I doubt Lamont’s conscience (aka the marionette strings of MorOn.org) would have allowed him to enthusiastically campaign on behalf of Lieberman.
Wow. You’re just so filled with hate, you can’t believe that Lamont is a man of his word. Your loss.
Dems are far better at eating their own than the GOP. While the GOP isn’t the last word on inclusiveness, their “big tent” is a lot bigger than the Left’s. You guys keep pushing people OUT of your party when they don’t march gooselockstep with the Party commissars.
You’re confusing two different phenomena. The Democrats have been too fractured in the recent past. In that respect, you’re right that the Democratic party hasn’t done a good job of melding it’s “tent.” Too many single-issue groups have applied litmus tests to candidates to realize that liberals and progressives win when liberals and progressives win elections, even if not every candidate is perfect on your own issue. That’s starting to change, and Lamont’s challenge to Lieberman was largely in this vein. Lieberman spent his time undermining liberals and progressives. The best thing Republicans can do for the Democrats is interpret the Lamont win as a single-issue win; it was anything but.
On the other hand, the GOP is all about narrow ideological purity. They are much better at melding different interest groups than the Dems, but those groups must toe the party line and candidates must be ideologically pure. That’s why Lincoln Chafee is in trouble, and that’s why Joe Schwartz lost yesterday.
The trends in the two parties bode much better for the Democrats than the Republicans. Democrats are becoming a more “big tent” party that is focused on pragmatic goals that have less to do with ideology, while the GOP is becoming an ideologically narrow, increasingly fringe party.
In that respect, you’re right that the Democratic party hasn’t done a good job of melding it’s “tent.”
it’s? it’s? ugh.
TJ, what is the ideology of the GOP?
TJ, what is the ideology of the GOP?
Confused conservatism.
Well, thanks! That doesn’t tell me much! (lol) I was being serious. I keep hearing about their “ideology” but never any specifics. I agree that they keep to the herd mentality but beyond money, what is important to them? Seems to me they are just as fractured but still maintain unity. There’s the religious “values” people; the business sector; the small government sector.
Aren’t dems supposed to be the “social secular values” people; the employee sector; government for the commonwealth sector which, by definition, requires bigger gov’t?
And look at this administration which has increased government and increased spending. I don’t see this as a big tent/little tent issue at all. I see this as a marketing issue first and a herd mentality issue second.
Dems are more educated and independent thinkers. But, republicans are the party of business which has a long history of marketing itself whether honestly and with integrity or otherwise. And consumers are buying it hook, line and sinker.
Also, the dems in government get way to allied with business interests.
We need finance reform. Perhaps we need to start at the state level.
Maria seems to be learning. She certainly wasn’t the only Democrat in Congress in 2002 who had a hard time believing that we’d somehow wound up with the Oval Office occupied by an amoral, lying, murderous sack of shit. Hell, it seems every day since the hijacking of the 2000 election I’ve found myself witness to some event or other that’s forced me to pinch myself to make sure it’s real and that I’m not having a bad dream.
The position she’s now taking is basically the same as that of the US Catholic Bishops, which is that we should be ashamed of ourselves for having invaded Iraq in the first place, but now that we’ve made such a horrible mess we’re obligated to make an effort to clean it up. Then we should say our mea culpas and get the hell out.
Unfortunately, our corrupt and opportunistic administration continues to exploit Iraq’s continuing instability, possibly actively promoting it, putting our own soldiers in harm’s way to justify the construction of permanent bases. In other words, Bush is using our own people as hostages. This has to end.
The lesson of Lieberman:
The polls tell us the President’s approval rating seldom gets out of the 30s. Congress is unpopular. Incumbents are unpopular. Voters prefer Democrats over Republicans by a margin of about 15%. When a once-popular, three-term senator gets bounced in a primary battle with a political unknown, it’s a very big deal. Those numbers all add up to a political upheaval this November. The folks in D.C. see the numbers. But they haven’t gotten their heads around what they mean. Joe was out of touch. And Washington D.C. is too.
But Maria is getting “bounced in a primary battle with a political unknown.” Holy Joe was a Bush ass-kisser, so it’s safe to say that those are the people who will be “bounced” in November.
“Unfortunately, our corrupt and opportunistic administration continues to exploit Iraq’s continuing instability, possibly actively promoting it, putting our own soldiers in harm’s way to justify the construction of permanent bases. In other words, Bush is using our own people as hostages. This has to end.
Commentby ArtFart— 8/9/06@ 3:39 pm
Right on, again, ArtFart. I think Bush has a personal agenda here and that $14mil base is right on top. And nobody is stopping him.
Real Mark:
“Lieberman is going to win the general…”
How? Lamont is going to get a lot of press now, he’ll have the backing of the Democratic Party, and people like Boxer and Clinton who stumped for him BEFORE the election are now all going to campaign for Lamont, so that they elect a DEMOCRAT. Republicans who voted for Joe in the primary will vote for their gambling-problem candidate in the general, because they was a REPUBLICAN to win. Many of the Democrats who supported Joe as their preferred candidate will now vote for the DEMOCRAT in the race. How does Joe win? How does he GAIN votes after this? From whom?
Socialist @ 2
Really? You think Hong Tran is a threat to Maria Cantwell in the primary? Wow. I mean, hold whaever political views you want, but live in the real world, man!
@ 46
Correction:
“…like Boxer and Clinton who stumped for Lieberman BEFORE the election are now all going to campaign for Lamont…”
Libertarian, I deferred to you on the last thread . . . thought you’d wanna know.
Commentby skagit— 8/9/06@ 3:04 pm
====
Thanks! As far as solving the pension problems for people employed by IBM or GM, I am still trying to figure out how to help the pension mess. No doubt about it, though: management made some incredilbe dumbass (illegal?) decisions, and a lot of hig-rollers got some nice salaries, bonuses, golden parachuts, and retirement money by some pretty shady tactics.
The only thing I can suggest is for younger folks to be aware that capitalism unfortunately can breed a contemtible class at the top who love to help themselves to money, be it the shareholders’ or the workers’. If we’re going to make this capitalist economy work, we’ve got to punish the bejeepers out of the Skillings and other crooks. I personally think the conviction against Ken Lay should stay in place rather than being vacated just because he kicked the bucket before sentencing as a gesture to history that we’ll never forget the Enron crooks.
Actually, there is some potential movement on the part of the new Fed chairman, Hank What’shisname, to make CEO retirement packages more transparent. This is not a small problem and is affecting employee pensions and has, so far, been invisible even to shareholders. The huge “stealth” packages are detrimental to the companies as well as employees.
And I stand by my statement that most are more vulnerable to greedy management than to lack of sufficient funds . . .
I know you think each person should be responsible for his/her own needs. I think that is unrealistic. One of government’s purposes is to regulate. I don’t think we’ve seen such corruption in my lifetime as we do today. That can and must be stopped.
Art, you lose all credibility when you mouth Sheehanistic rantings calling Bush a Murderer.
Daddy Love (NAMBLA?) @ 46: “Republicans who voted for Joe in the primary”
Serious question… Is CT’s primary open to all? I could be wrong, but I thought only registered Dems could vote in that race.
Liebermann is about to pull a “Ross Perot” on the Democrats.
Bend over losers.
Commentby skagit— 8/9/06@ 3:35 pm
Sorry to be so flip, but I was busy and “true” conservatism is largely a thing of the past, just as “pure” liberalism is nearly extinct, and defining modern “conservatism” is not a simple task. I’ll give you the short version because I still don’t have a lot of time.
In short, I used the term “confused conservatism” because modern conservatism as practiced by the GOP has come to embrace a number of contradictory principles and reject a number of classically conservative positions. Modern conservatism has completely abandoned its distrust of centralized (especially government) power. Glenn Greenwald, David Neiwert, and Digby have written extensively on what many are calling “authoritarian cultists.” I think cult is too harsh a term, but there is little doubt about the authoritarian part. This is manifest not only in an embrace of government spending on programs THEY like, but also in an abandonment of their classical defenses of civil liberties. So they try to cut social programs and cut taxes under the guise of classical, small government principles, but they increase spending on other GOP friendly programs and support warrantless wiretapping of American citizens on U.S. soil.
I also use the term “confused” because (and, again, Glenn Greenwald is an excellent source for a more thorough discussion of this phenomenon) even those who profess to be conservatives shift their meaning quite often. When combined with the authoritarian impulses, it yields some curious results. Basically, right now, you’re not a conservative if you disagree with George Bush. Think how often in the past few years someone who is objectively conservative has been called a liberal by others who claim to be conservative simply for voicing opposition to one of President Bush’s policies. Andrew Sullivan would be a good example here; I kid you not, he has been called a liberal by other Republicans.
Well, that’s the quick version. Hope that helps.
Alito! I wonder if lamont would have voted to end the Alito filibuster?
Dear rugrat and his/her/its fellow koolaid drinkers,
Perhaps you should stop mouth-breathing long enough to ponder the significance (and irony) of the fact that conservatives have gleefully and jubilantly joined you in celebrating the ‘election’ of NetNutNed.
WE GOT US A MERRY AUGUST CHRISTMAS, WE GOT US A MERRY AUGUST CHRISTMAS, WE GOT US A MERRY AUGUST CHRISTMAS, AND A HAPPY NOVEMBER ELECTION.
ps to Daddy Love… that’s a really creepy nom de plume… think about it
@45
There is NOT any permanent fucking bases in IRAQ. They are NOT building any permanent fucking bases there either. Stop saying they are. 14 million dollars spent on a base in Iraq does NOT make it permanent. It puts in air conditioners, gyms, computers and telephones for the soldiers to email and phone home with, showers, latrines and dining facilities. All of those things are housed in temporary wooden buildings, trailers, sheds, and tents!
Alito is on the Supreme Court for life – just the same as the others.
Surreal Mark @ 20
A lot of blind wingnut talking points there. I feel sorry for you.
Lamont is a pretty moderate guy. A blueblood who made a pile in cable tv. His position on the Iraq agrees with 60 percent of Americans. Sounds mainstream to me.
It’s Lieberman who’s out of touch.
ASS: you and your kind were wrong on the election contest, wrong on I-912 and wrong on the woman-abusing, resume inflating David Irons Jr. May the streak continue.
Yep.. Poor ol’ Joe is our of touch… with the 10% netnut wing of the country.
We’ll see how that plays in the heartland… and in the general CT election.
Once again, why are WE celebrating then?
Perhaps you should stop mouth-breathing long enough to ponder the significance (and irony) of the fact that conservatives have gleefully and jubilantly joined you in celebrating the ‘election’ of NetNutNed.
51 “Art, you lose all credibility when you mouth Sheehanistic rantings calling Bush a Murderer.”
Sorry, Sven…I came to see him for what he is long before I’d ever heard of Cindy Sheehan. It’s you who toss your own credibility in the trash by seeking to defend him. Americans are on the other side of the world killing and dying so that cowardly buffoon and his cronies can continue to line their pockets. That’s detestable.
Why the Republicans Are Loving the Lieberman Loss
thank gowd old leather butt is gone
I wont defend him, i have enough criticism for anyone.
But I wont stoop to pointless rhetoric, it ruins honest debate.
He has in fact not murdered anyone, and I defy anyone to prove otherwise.
I can disagree with all of his policies without stooping to KOS-like Shehan rhetoric.
@25:
They did fail to get her elected legitimately, but we got her anyway. Ho-hum.
Come on, Maria! Admit that the Iraq crusade is a fiasco. Get the message out to the voters that we’re tried of losing our man and women to the Iraq disaster! And bankrupting the country at the expense of our kids and grandkids.
Show us you are a real democrat! You can do it!
Smeg, at 57, try this on for size (it is a little more current than your obvious other sources): (February, 2006)
http://www.salon.com/opinion/f.....ngelhardt/
“If, as just about every expert agrees, Bush-style reconstruction has failed dismally in Iraq, thanks to thievery, knavery, and sheer incompetence, and is now essentially ending, it has been a raging success in Iraq’s “Little America.” For the first time, we have actual descriptions of a couple of the “super-bases” built in Iraq in the last two and a half years and, despite being written by reporters under Pentagon information restrictions, they are sobering. Thomas Ricks of the Washington Post paid a visit to Balad Air Base, the largest American base in the country, 68 kilometers north of Baghdad and “smack in the middle of the most hostile part of Iraq.” In a piece titled “Biggest Base in Iraq Has Small-Town Feel,” Ricks paints a striking portrait:
The base is sizeable enough to have its own “neighborhoods” including “KBR-land” (in honor of the Halliburton subsidiary that has done most of the base-construction work in Iraq); “CJSOTF” (“home to a special operations unit,” the Combined Joint Special Operations Task Force, surrounded by “especially high walls,” and so secretive that even the base Army public affairs chief has never been inside); and a junkyard for bombed out Army Humvees. There is as well a Subway, a Pizza Hut, a Popeye’s, “an ersatz Starbucks,” a 24-hour Burger King, two post exchanges where TVs, iPods, and the like can be purchased, four mess halls, a hospital, a strictly enforced on-base speed limit of 10 MPH, a huge airstrip, 250 aircraft (helicopters and predator drones included), air-traffic pile-ups of a sort you would see over Chicago’s O’Hare airport, and “a miniature golf course, which mimics a battlefield with its baby sandbags, little Jersey barriers, strands of concertina wire and, down at the end of the course, what appears to be a tiny detainee cage.”
C’mon Smeg, “enduring bases” like all the others? Get real here. BTW, if you haven’t heard of Ricks, he’s just about the most trusted reporter on the whole Iraq War . . . spent months in the red zone and has a book out called “Fiasco.” Please don’t mix this up with partisan politics. This guy’s for real and he knows what he’s talking about.
the whole base thing is a red herring. No one bitches about all the other bases we have world wide, why should we not get a base in the middle east. We need it there more then we do in Germany or Britain.
Over 1 billion dollars for an embasy in Iraq , don’t tell me that that does not represent a permanent base in Iraq .
68…or, conversely, we need the bases in Europe even less than we do the ones in Iraq.
So far, everything, and I mean EVERYTHING this administration has done in terms of foreign policy has follwed the script of the Project-For-A-New-American-Clusterfuck to the letter, except just about every step taken has been done in such a clumsy, ineffective and wasteful manner that the end result turns out to be more embarrassment than conquest.
Oh, yeah, Sven…in 64 you forgot to mention Michael Moore.
The way I see it we’ve fucked over their country and we’re going to be damn sure we keep an eye on that oil . . .
skagit,
FYI, I responded above from earlier. Sorry for the delay.
Sven at 64: I think sending kids to war based on prevarication could aptly be called murder.
@68 Building unnecessary and rich bases and adding to our already hugh national debt just to keep an eye on oil for BP and the Saudis is shameful. No problem at all with closing bases in Germany; in fact, all for it. Let’s do it.
TJ @ 72: I saw it and thanks. I think we make all of this too complicated sometimes. If you read my previous post, you know I think it boils down to propaganda, marketing and a extreme need for finance reform.
68: Airbases in Germany and Britain did not inspire thousands of young British and German teenagers to become suicide bombers, as they did in Iraq. They did not cause a neighboring country slowly moving toward reform (Iran) to move rapidly backward, electing a neo-Nazi President in a democratic election.
For years the Mullahs have been trying to increase their power by arguing that America was the cause of their problems, and was looking for an excuse to invade. Only a few believed them, because they could see no evidence to support those claims. But now the “Crusaders” are right in the Middle East, occupying a “fellow Muslim country”, and the recruits keep coming. The British found out how difficult the Iraqis could be during their occupation; the Iraqis have a hatred of occupation, regardless of however benevolent.
Bush Sr. saw the problems inherent in occupying Iraq and wisely chose to avoid them, even though it may have cost him re-election.
But W. Bush and Rumsfield think their “gut instincts” are superior to many seasoned generals, most of whom were young officers in Vietnam, and marginalized anyone who didn’t tell him what he wanted to here. The results spoke for themselves: a quick short-term military victory, followed by monumental screw-ups at every decision-point thereafter.
The bases in Iraq are destabililzing the region, causing far more problems than they will ever solve.
Cantwell is certainly not Lamont and by the same token, Open Mike(not) is not Lamont.
However, Riechart is definitely a Lieberman. He embraced bush and is a empty suit!!!!
TJ @ 54
I agree that the GOP has gone off track — in some cases WAY off track. However, one should look at how the two major parties handle dissent and/or policy shift.
The working to change the Dem party are trying to push out anyone that doesn’t kiss their ring.
The GOP does try to influence candidates, but supports them nonetheless and maintains some level of cohesiveness (aka the Big Tent).
Clueless @ 59
Those aren’t talking points. They’re my personal opinions based on professional experience. Perception trumps reality.
Lamont is PERCEIVED as the darling of the Hard Left, anti-war movement. If other Dem candidates suddenly dive Left, it WILL be noticed and will appear that they are beholden to the MoveOn group. Any good political strategist on the other side will jump all over it and pull a good chunk of the moderate majority (and, yes, it IS a majority) to their side.
Are you saying that 60% of the country supports Cut ‘n’ Run? That would be wrong.
According to the polls I’ve seen, ABC/WaPo in this case, the 60% is simply “disapprove of the way President Bush is handling the war in Iraq.”
When asked who they thought would do a better job in Iraq, the result was pretty evenly split between the Dems and GOP.
Doesn’t sound like Cut ‘n’ Run is a clearcut winner for the Left.
Skagit,
Sven at 64: I think sending kids to war based on prevarication could aptly be called murder.
I would see that but while there have been miustakes and blunders, there has been no evidence of lies, as in the actual definition of the word, knowingly statign a falshood.
As for embassies, we have them in more countries then we have bases….which do you advocate we close?
RHP,
So before our base in Iraq, what motivated all those suicide bombers and terrorist attacks? You cannot always blame us for their religious jihads.
Whether we have a base in Iraq or not is meaningless. Our presence there, well that is open to debate, but the bases are not the issue, the troops are if you want to see it that way.
I happen to think there is open room to finish what has started and leave. Maybe I am optimistic, but thats my opinion.
Clueless,
I just read PROUD’s link to Time Magazine: Why the Republicans Are Loving the Lieberman Loss. You should take a peek at it. Backs up a lot of what I believed would happen.
You should also read Dems Move Closer to McGovern’s Losing Formula
It can’t hurt you to read a little bit. And here you have three solid and independent sources (Time, RealClearPolitics and me) saying the same thing! :-)
Sven, you typically and very conveniently cut a fine line on your definition of “to lie” – omissions and spinning are very close. I think the word fits in that the intention was to deceive. More splitting hairs by the right. You do it because you must but it tells an awful lot about the right’s integrity or lack of it.
Bases. Close bases everywhere for all of me. Bases in Saude Arabia and the muslim world got us in trouble with Bin Laden to begin with. We don’t need them. And those bases were the cause of much of the suicide bombing and hate-for-America terrorism from the Muslim world before 9-11 and before Iraq. They want us out of their countries. They want us to quit propping up the Sauds. They want us out of their business. Just like Iran wanted us out of their business and they finaly toppled the Shah. Go back a few years, Sven. Take a broader view.
80 – The whole of wingnut blogistan is towing the same line and that Time writer is repeating RNC talking points. It’s neither here nor there. The people of CT will make the final call and hopefully tune out the noise.
Real Clear politics? What a laugh! I see Bush worshipper Fred Barnes, The New DLC Republic, Blankley from the Moonie Times? Hah! Need I say more?
Leiberman’s position on the sad sack disaster that is Iraq is what is at issue. Leiberman’s undercutting of the Dems has helped compromise the Dems’ effectiveness as a “loyal opposition”.
Look at all the bad legislation and policy that have come about the last six years. Joe Lieberman has done next to nothing to keep that tide at bay.
The Dems of CT have recalled him. He has arrogantly thumbed his nose at them. Ok, fine. He’ll reap what he sows.
1. The republican tent just seems bigger because it is all about money and the more money it can hold, the bigger it gets. And boy is the republican base ever getting richer! Lots of diverse repubs but they are united around money.
Dems have no such unifying force. It’s harder.
Commentby skagit— 8/9/06@ 3:00 pm
Skagit I like your funny name, but you want to be a winner do not surround yourself with a bunch of losers. The reason you don’t have money is nobody taught you how to acquire it and hold onto it. Socialist Democrats only play the Robin Hood game steal from the rich and give it to the poor. They really seal from the middle class, give a very small portion to the poor and pocket the rest. Not bad scams just follow Jessie Jackson around and you will the fine art of shaking people down.
1. know you think each person should be responsible for his/her own needs. I think that is unrealistic. One of government’s purposes is to regulate. I don’t think we’ve seen such corruption in my lifetime as we do today. That can and must be stopped.
Commentby skagit— 8/9/06@ 4:12 pm
Skagit have you look at your phone bill lately? The price is outrageous due to government regulations. What you need is you controlling your cost not the government doing it for you. They just removed the Spanish American Tax of your phone bill a few years ago. When did the Spanish American War end? Now corruption have you been to Louisiana lately now that is corruption at it best, run by Socialist Democrats.
Skagit,
Sven, you typically and very conveniently cut a fine line on your definition of “to lie” – omissions and spinning are very close.
I prefer the exact definition myself. as soon as someone shows me a Bush lie, I will condemn him.
I did however uncover a wonder Cantwell lie, but no one wants to condemn her.
Granted her lie did not put soldiers in danger, they just kept low income familes outside of Washington at there same low income. No worries, eh mate?
I think the word fits in that the intention was to deceive. More splitting hairs by the right. You do it because you must but it tells an awful lot about the right’s integrity or lack of it.
I dont feel they intended to decieve, there was no value in it.
I think they firmly believed what they said, after giving far too much credit to incomplete intelligence. Our mistake was in hubris, thinking our intelligence service was up to the task, but Clinton and Gorelick hamstrung our efforts at home and abroad. Nice that Gorelick got to sit on the commission and whitewash her own failed policies, eh?
And for the record, at the time of the invasion of Iraq I vocally opposed it, I wanted to finsh cleaning house in Afganistan first.
Do you, by the way condemn Clinton for lying to the public about his sexual affairs from 1992 on? I would say that is an intentional effort to decieve?
Fact is you will jump on any republican lie, whether real or percieved and ignore any from Bill and Maria. Will you deny the corruption in your own party too, as Rep Jefferson lines his freezer with bribe money?
Bases. Close bases everywhere for all of me. Bases in Saude Arabia and the muslim world got us in trouble with Bin Laden to begin with.
oh bull. that is such crap.
We don’t need them.
We don’t need most of the stateside ones either, but congress (both sides) protects their little pork barrel shrines with a religious ferver. I was stationed at a base in California for 12 years and watched the most useless bases escape the closure list because their state legislators fought tooth in nail to keep the money in their state or district, while necessary ones had to be trimmed or closed entirely.
They want us to quit propping up the Sauds.
obviously you are not part of the “the Saudis were behind 911” conspiracy groups.
They want us out of their business. Just like Iran wanted us out of their business and they finaly toppled the Shah. Go back a few years, Sven. Take a broader view.
you are close but wrong. Our capitalism and blatant hedonism is an affront to them socially and religiously. Our prominent religions are too. Our democracy is. Our equality for women as well. And most of all our support of Israel is.
Take a step back out of your Howard Dean playbook and look at the facts.
heck, even Sheehan blames the jews…
@67
Gidget, None of the things you described indicate anything permanent. I spent 5 1/2 months in Saudi Arabia (First Gulf War) and 4 plus months on a airfield in Tirana Albania (Kosovo air campaign). One of my very best friends works for KBR in Iraq. The bases are permanent when they are building concrete buildings and soldiers are stationed there on regular PCS tours.
@69
The US has embassies all over the globe. In every country that the US has diplomatic relations with. An embassy is NOT a fucking military base and yes, embassies are permanent.
rhp6033
While your overall point is correct, soldiers did lose their lives in Germany due to car bombs and other terrorist activities. I was stationed in Germany from 82 to 82, 88-91 and 97 to 2000. I was in Hanau which is close to Frankfurt and soldiers died when they got in their cars and started them to go to work. We had to physically check our cars every morning before getting in them. I also got to see hundreds of screaming Germans protesting around the Army base. I was caught up in it on the street. They treated my car to lots of bangs on the windows, the hood and the truck as they surged past our cars.
Good boy Goldy, keep shilling for democrats who sell out our troops by keeping them in an endless war! You are pathetic, a souless partisan masquerading as a principled progressive. Clinton would be soo proud of you.
Evidently Jacko not only drinks the Kool-Aid, but bathes in it.
great commentary on Lieberman at http://www.cheezymovies.blogspot.com
Interesting that no one mentions Cantwell’s continuous support of the Patriot Act, the most erroneous piece of legislation to bunker its way past reality since 9/11. How come everyone wants to hold the supporters of the war to accountability, but what about what’s going on here, in our country? What is Cantwell doing to protect our rights, our Constitution? It’s mentioned that Cantwell voted to re-deploy troops from Iraq earlier this, how about Feingold’s resolution for beginning to set a timetable? She voted against that. The weight shouldn’t be placed solely on Cantwell’s stance on Iraq, but everything that’s going on. Sure she voted to stop drilling in Alaska, so should anybody, has everybody gone that insane? If Cantwell’s a Democrat, what’s she doing to push the Democratic agenda along? Seems to me she’s just playing her own personal agenda out. Congress and the House need a “House” cleaning, big time! Corruption is rampant and is getting worse by the day, its time to send a message to legislatures that they can’t just do what “they” want, but what us, their employers want.
Smeg @ 57: “There is NOT any permanent fucking bases in IRAQ. They are NOT building any permanent fucking bases there either. Stop saying they are. 14 million dollars spent on a base in Iraq does NOT make it permanent. It puts in air conditioners, gyms, computers and telephones for the soldiers to email and phone home with, showers, latrines and dining facilities. All of those things are housed in temporary wooden buildings, trailers, sheds, and tents!
Commentby sgmmac— 8/9/06@ 4:56 pm
The base is sizeable enough to have its own “neighborhoods” including “KBR-land” (in honor of the Halliburton subsidiary that has done most of the base-construction work in Iraq); “CJSOTF” (“home to a special operations unit,” the Combined Joint Special Operations Task Force, surrounded by “especially high walls,” and so secretive that even the base Army public affairs chief has never been inside); and a junkyard for bombed out Army Humvees. There is as well a Subway, a Pizza Hut, a Popeye’s, “an ersatz Starbucks,” a 24-hour Burger King, two post exchanges where TVs, iPods, and the like can be purchased, four mess halls, a hospital, a strictly enforced on-base speed limit of 10 MPH, a huge airstrip, 250 aircraft (helicopters and predator drones included), air-traffic pile-ups of a sort you would see over Chicago’s O’Hare airport, and “a miniature golf course, which mimics a battlefield with its baby sandbags, little Jersey barriers, strands of concertina wire and, down at the end of the course, what appears to be a tiny detainee cage.”
Smeg @ 84: Gidget, None of the things you described indicate anything permanent. I spent 5 1/2 months in Saudi Arabia (First Gulf War) and 4 plus months on a airfield in Tirana Albania (Kosovo air campaign). One of my very best friends works for KBR in Iraq. The bases are permanent when they are building concrete buildings and soldiers are stationed there on regular PCS tours.
Commentby sgmmac— 8/10/06@ 1:00 am
Ah, Smeg. I’m supposed to take you seriously?
Goldstein,
You missed your calling. After triumphantly dancing about the Lamont victory, your then turn right around 180 degrees and try to spin that THIS (Cantwell) “Pro-War” Democrat should not get the Lieberman treatment? Why not? She voted for the war just like Lieberman did.
Anyway, your tap dancing was quite entertaining. You missed your calling.
Karl at 83:
Skagit,
Sven, you typically and very conveniently cut a fine line on your definition of “to lie” – omissions and spinning are very close.
I prefer the exact definition myself. as soon as someone shows me a Bush lie, I will condemn him.
Of course you need the EXACT definition because splitting hairs and the art of deception requires such. The need to confuse and parse is paramount when deceiving.
I did however uncover a wonder Cantwell lie, but no one wants to condemn her.
Granted her lie did not put soldiers in danger, they just kept low income familes outside of Washington at there same low income. No worries, eh mate?
I do not condone anyone’s lies, be they right or left. I do look at intention, motivation and consequence. Don’t you? You make a accusation here but do not back it up so cannot comment very intelligently. The right seems to have that tendency to spread bs without backup. Just to clear up something: no, I don’t consider lying about sex in the same category as lying about going to war. Silly me. If I did, I’d have to include all those little white lies I’ve told over a lifetime. I know, you’ve never told one! (lol)
I think the word fits in that the intention was to deceive. More splitting hairs by the right. You do it because you must but it tells an awful lot about the right’s integrity or lack of it.
I dont feel they intended to decieve, there was no value in it.
your opinion without factual backup means nothing. I trusted the weapons inspectors who wanted more time. I listened to Wilson. I trust the Downing Street Memo and other artifacts that have since come out almost indisputably confirming the decision to go to war regardless of facts.
I think they firmly believed what they said, after giving far too much credit to incomplete intelligence. Our mistake was in hubris, thinking our intelligence service was up to the task, but Clinton and Gorelick hamstrung our efforts at home and abroad. Nice that Gorelick got to sit on the commission and whitewash her own failed policies, eh?
Such an old tactic on the right: Clinton, Clinton, Clinton! When will you give The Decider his due?
Clinton continued sanctions, called for strategic bombing, tried to warn the Bush adm. that terrorism should be at the top of the list (but, of course, Bush went on vacation), and new something about foreign policy and the Middle East. Wasn’t it yesterday that Bush admitted he didn’t know about the Shiites, Sunnis etc. ? O r was it a few weeks ago? Duh?
You can “firmly believe” whatever you want. The facts show otherwise.
And for the record, at the time of the invasion of Iraq I vocally opposed it, I wanted to finsh cleaning house in Afganistan first.
We agree.
Do you, by the way condemn Clinton for lying to the public about his sexual affairs from 1992 on? I would say that is an intentional effort to decieve?
Back to Clinton, sigh. When will you people let your president stand on his own? I do not condone lies regardless of who does them. I did not vote for Clinton in 1996. You make such assumptions . . . because you have no ability to discern. You lump us all into the same herd mentality to which you on the right seem to gravitate. So, please don’t use Clinton in arguments with me. It doesn’t work. I didn’t vote for him.
Fact is you will jump on any republican lie, whether real or percieved and ignore any from Bill and Maria. Will you deny the corruption in your own party too, as Rep Jefferson lines his freezer with bribe money?
Red herrings. You have no facts to support the issue that started this conversation so you always default back to simplistic and silly observations and baseless accusations. That is what makes trying to debate with the right so futile. Why do you have to resort of extras in this play of politics instead of holding accountable your president? Is your store of facts empty? Is your integrity bankrupted? Surely you have more in your arsenal of facts than what you’ve shown?
Bases. Close bases everywhere for all of me. Bases in Saude Arabia and the muslim world got us in trouble with Bin Laden to begin with.
oh bull. that is such crap.
No, that is truth. Bin Laden hated the American bases in Saudi Arabia. He hated the femaile soldiers who were breaking Islamic law. He hated our support of Israel. He hates our influence in the Middle East. You need some background on this whole thing.
We don’t need them.
We don’t need most of the stateside ones either, but congress (both sides) protects their little pork barrel shrines with a religious ferver. I was stationed at a base in California for 12 years and watched the most useless bases escape the closure list because their state legislators fought tooth in nail to keep the money in their state or district, while necessary ones had to be trimmed or closed entirely.
If you are saying our military industial complex needs to be reduced, I agree.
They want us to quit propping up the Sauds.
obviously you are not part of the “the Saudis were behind 911? conspiracy groups.
Obviously, you don’t know that not all Saudis support their government, the House of Saud.
They want us out of their business. Just like Iran wanted us out of their business and they finaly toppled the Shah. Go back a few years, Sven. Take a broader view.
you are close but wrong. Our capitalism and blatant hedonism is an affront to them socially and religiously. Our prominent religions are too. Our democracy is. Our equality for women as well. And most of all our support of Israel is.
Well, you do know that! Why such ignorance earlier in your post, then? What have I said that is different than what you just said? I think you don’t know how to apply your own knowledge . . .
Take a step back out of your Howard Dean playbook and look at the facts.
Back to stupid accusations . . . I don’t even know what this means. Do you? Tell me please the Howard Dean playbook. I’m interested. Then you can tell me the Ken Mehlman/ Karl Rove playbook. I’d love to know all the rules of the games you play. I just look at history, facts, and try to apply what I know. But, if you want to bring me up to date on the games you all find so fascinating, I’m game (no pun intended, ha)
heck, even Sheehan blames the jews…
Relevancy, please?
Oh C’mon PBJ, she didn’t kiss him!
CAFTAwell has been one of the most resolute supporters of the Bush administration’s war of aggression against the Iraqi people. Like Lamont, she gives blank check to the Israeli government to attack when, where, and whoever it wishes. Those like her who support the daily murders of dispossessed Palestinians are also responsible for the historic ecological disaster caused by military strikes releasing oil into the waters of the Lebanese coastline.
She is worse than Lamont, and more like Lieberman. The only plausible opposition to her is Aaron Dixon, the Green candidate. Before the predictable wail of “throwing it to the other guys” arises, let me say this–the two major parties have rigged the system so that any third party must play off the two against each other. So be it! Let this be part of the price that corrupt politicians (and their apologists) pay for giving the otherwise voiceless an electoral presence on voting day.
@94,
If the kiss was so offensive, then liberals just showed how hypocritical they are on the same sex marriage issue didn’t they?
Having gotten quoted BEFORE GOLDIE in the P-I (ROFLMAO), let me say that this “Cantwell and Lamont agree” bullshit is just not going to work. Wouldn’t it all be a little easier if Cantwell looked at the fiasco in Iraq and said to herself AND EVERYBODY ELSE “You know, I DO regret my vote to give Bush carte blanche over here”????
Seriously, why does she remain to the RIGHT of her party leadership on this cluster-fuck? What is the fucking matter with her?
She GAINS points changing her position on Iraq because she can slam McGavick with Bush’s failures.
PBJ: you make about as much sense as a nickel . . . where did you learn your logic, Peanut Butter and Jelly U?
Your posts really don’t deserve answers. . .
#97!! BINGO!!! You get the door prize!!
McGimmick have kids in the military? Are they stationed in the Middle East?
I’d vote for a toad before I voted for McGimmick!
SKAGIT: Sarcasim goes right over your head doesn’t it?
Republicans LOVE Cantwell. It really doesn’t matter who wins, either way BUSH WINS! HA HA HA HA HA
Cantwell, a corporate exec, pro-war BUSH ally.
McGavick, a corporate exec, pro-war BUSH ally.
It doesn’t matter what the prefix is as long as the votes are correct. Cantwell doesn’t disappoint! Thanks Dems! ;)
PBJ . . . there was no sarcasm in your answer. Just unmitigated stupidity.
woWwBBezO6GE9 OGNFTJiVii8y0 XgESh2UOJ6
SyrViGKMTg8k5u lx5DVYJsJ0loE 7CzG2FI7Qg2WjG